the whole problem likely stems from this very bothersome definition of a hipster. At a baseline, a hipster is simply "a person who follows trends and fashions i

the whole problem likely stems from this very bothersome definition of a hipster. At a baseline, a hipster is simply "a person who follows trends and fashions in an ironic way". Different people have these other nuances and qualifiers that are applied inconsistently... "they're not a hipster unless they're also shallow and facile"... "hipsters are attention seekers"... "a hipster is somebody who tries to be one, until it stops being cool" and so on. What irks me about these various definitions is that it's as if people are having an academic debate about which pejorative or negative stereotype deserves to be christened a "hipster", when there's already a very diverse and complex community in existence that self-identifies as such. The only context I see such a debate making sense is when people have a perverse need to somehow preserve their ire and rage against the word "hipster" after being confronted with wholesome, happy counter-examples. This poor bloke is a guy whom a lot of regular people would quickly slot down as a hipster, just from his looks and habits. He probably self-identifies as one too (because, hey, he likes the same music and dresses the same and it's always nice to have a sense of community with like minds). And there ought not be anything wrong with it. Yet there's an active hipster-hate community that's not going to drill down into his benign motivations before shredding him up. So what appears to be the way forward here? Collectively agreeing that it's high time to dial back the rhetoric on hipsters? Or telling the guy who thinks he's a hipster that he's not really a hipster because hipsters are supposed to be jerkfaces?